MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781185417 · doi:10.1017/s1478951517000773

Family care conferences in long-term care: Exploring content and processes in end-of-life communication

2017· article· en· W2781185417 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela Durepos, Sharon Kaasalainen, Tamara Sussman, Deborah Parker, Kevin Brazil, Susan Mintzberg, Alyssa Te

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMultidisciplinary approachPsychological interventionEnd-of-life careDocumentationNursingContent analysisFeelingMedicineAdvance care planningScale (ratio)FieldnotesPsychologyFamily medicineGerontologySociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTObjective:End-of-life (EoL) communication in long-term care (LTC) homes is often inadequate and delayed, leaving residents dying with unknown preferences or goals of care. Poor communication with staff contributes to families feeling unprepared, distressed, and dissatisfied with care. Family care conferences (FCCs) aim to increase structured systematic communication around goals and plans for the end of life. As part of the Strengthening a Palliative Approach to Care (SPA-LTC) project, FCCs were implemented in four LTC sites in Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this substudy was to examine FCC content and such guiding processes as documentation and multidisciplinary staff participation. METHOD: A total of 24 FCCs were held for residents with a Palliative Performance Scale score of 40% (nearing death). Data were collected from conference forms (i.e., Family Questionnaires, Care Plan Conference Summaries), site-specific electronic chart documents, and fieldnotes. Directed content analysis of data was informed by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association's Square of Care Model, which describes eight domains of care: disease management, physical, psychological, social, practical, spiritual, EoL, and loss/bereavement. RESULTS: The FCCs addressed an average of 71% of the content domains, with physical and EoL care addressed most frequently and loss/bereavement addressed the least. Two goals and five interventions were documented and planned on average per FCC. Examination of the processes supporting EoL communication found: (1) advantages to using FCC forms versus electronic charts; and (2) high levels of multidisciplinary participation overall but limited participation of personal support workers (PSWs) and physicians. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Communication around the end of life in LTC can be supported through the use of FCCs. Description of content and FCC processes provides guidance to persons implementing FCCs. Recommendations for tailoring conferences to optimize communication include use of specific conference forms, increased bereavement discussion, and further engagement of PSWs and physicians.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.324
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207